click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
MSNBCW 19
CNNW 15
MSNBC 14
CNN 13
WTTG 2
LANGUAGE
English 63
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 63 (some duplicates have been removed)
mr. nice guy. >> the president responds to questions about susan rice -- >> about the benghazi attacks. >> senator mccain and senator graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> former cia director david petraeus will testify before the senate intelligence committee. >> general petraeus had an affair with his biographer. people are snapping up copies of the book. >> it's so pathetic. >> the book is available in hard cover and extremely hard cover. >>> today on an i'm sorry i lost conference call with top campaign don't oorks ors, mitt romney said the president won the election because he game african-american and latino voters, quote, gifts. abc news has this audio. >> what the president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote. >> romney also said that the president's campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift so he made a big effort on small things. those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dol
namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice. the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of those americans. republicans attacking ever since. but now, as susan rice's name floated as a successor to hillary clinton as secretary of state, mccain and graham taken out after susan rice. that, no question about it, it came from the heart and raised the ire of president obama. here's what he had to say. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to -- to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they th
. and that if you nominate susan rice for secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. as senator graham said, he simply doesn't trust ambassador rice after what she said about benghazi. i would like your reaction to that and would those threats deter from making a nomination like that? >> first of all, i'm not going to comment at this point on various nominations that i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the succeecond term. those are things that are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothin
want to ask you about susan rice, she is meeting with senators mccain, graham, and ayott. do you think she has explaining to do with what she said about benghazi? and would you support her if she is nominated for secretary of state? >> she's not yet been nominated. so i'm going to look carefully at her credentials, which i think qualify her very well to be nominated. i think she's done a very good job at the united nations. i do think she's explained that what she said about benghazi was the intelligence that she was given. and she'll have an opportunity as she meets with senators to further explain that position. >> do you think they're open to giving her a fair hearing? because some pretty tough things have been said about her. >> well, it's unfortunate that much of that discussion has gotten so personal. she does need to get a fair hearing. i'm hopeful senator mccain is a patriot, i think he'll give her a fair hearing. i'm certain my colleague from new hampshire, and of lindsey graham. so i do believe that it's in the country's interest to give her a fair hearing and to let her expl
blame game that drew the president's ire, defending susan rice after comments by republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham that they would oppose her nomination to be secretary of state based on remarks she made about the benghazi attacks. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmerch her reputation is outrageous. >> indeed. let's get to our panel julian epstein, lynn sweet, washington bureau sweet for chicago "sun-times" and msnbc political analyst professor michael eric dyson of georgetown university. professor dyson,fy might begin with you, perhaps the most hated moment in that press conference was the president's barely concealed anger that republicans have been attacking ambassador susan rice for the confusion surrounding the benghazi consulate attacks. this, as you know, has been the drum beat from republicans from the right wing media for
.s. consulate in benghazi and said if you nominate susan rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination as senator graham said, he simply doesn't trust ambassador rice after what she said about benghazi. i would like your reaction to that and would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that? >> well, first of all, i'm not going to comment at this point on various nominations i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. a
. >> susan rice goes to capitol hill and she says, hey, you know what, bad intel, i made a mistake, i'm sorry. i am glad that the people that are in economy party on capitol hill have hearts as big as a montana sky because i'm sure they said, hey, it's cool. we all make mistakes. all of us on capitol hill, we all make mistakes from time to time and it's cool. so how did this work out after she said she was sorry? >> there's still another chance. ambassador susan rice is heading back to capitol hill today. >> i want to know what happened. >> well, i will tell you. she continued to defend her response on september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi as a top pick to replace secretary of state hillary clinton. rice faces sort of an uphill battle because she failed to win over her harshest republican critics yesterday. >> i don't think it's an uphill battle. >> unless you want to be secretary of state for greenvil greenville, south carolina or mesa -- >> she requested this meeting was with specifically senators lindsey graham, kelly ayotte and -- >> they were upset. john mccain over the
the reputation of his united nations ambassador susan rice. much more cautious comments from the president about the david petraeus scandal and the fbi's investigation. we're covering all the angles of his first news conference since the election. and israel retaliates for rocket attacks with deadly strikes and extremist targets. now hamas is warning that the gates of hell have been opened. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> eight days after his re-election, president obama faced reporters in the midst of an unfolding scandal and with a potential economic crisis holding over his head. but he only got riled up when he responded to republican criticism of his united nations ambassador susan rice. more on that coming up. standby. but first, the president's careful responses about the investigation of this former cia chief david petraeus and on negotiations to avoid what's called the fiscal cliff. our white house correspondent jessica yellin was over at the east strip of the white house. you had a chance to speak to the president and ask him about that looming fiscal cliff. >> rep
tragedy. but we have an explanation from petraeus for why susan rice said what she said. that is to say they deliberately obscured what they knew in order to avoid giving away too much to our adversaries. now you could say why did you need to do that? i'm not competent to say what advantage was gained there, but i'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up
on the deadly attack begin as president obama lashes out at republicans for attacking u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> i knee people don't come to spontaneous demonstrations with rockets and mortars for the president of the united states for two weeks afterwards to deny that was the case, is either a coverup or it is incompetence. >> ahead this hour, one of the republicans calling for a wider probe, new hampshire senator kelly ayotte. and what's going on with the generals? leon panetta orders ethics review. the fbi agent, he's the guy who brought down the millennium bomber. >>> taking out the military leader of hamas and fire from the gaza strip. >> israel will continue to take whatever action is necessary to defend our people. >> we'll talk to michae
that they didn't change anything that the intelligence report went to susan rice other than what you named the consulate or dip the maic facility. what do you make of that? >> well, what is the issue that has been raised as a result of that? i think we all know the intelligence community had created the talking points that did come out about the incident that occurred. the purpose is to make sure that any information or that they would give to the media would not be classified. i think that's how a lot of these issues with the talking points started and the issue that's been raised in the last couple of days has been the issue of having al qaeda taken out of the talking points and putting extremists in there. my answer to that is that the analysts who would have made those different changes and you have the intelligence committee that is analyzed and they give it to the administration or us. what happened in that situation is there are some who have said that by taking the word al qaeda out and putting extremist that changed the content. i don't see it that way. i think extremist covers a
graham along with the u.n. ambassador susan rice. the three senators emerged from the meeting saying they were honored by the fact that the cia director would meet with them, just three random senators and not in some official capacity testifying before committee on the hill. they appreciated the fact that the administration and the intelligence community was going to such lengths to e swaj their concerns to personally answer their questions about the libya attack in a closed-door meeting with the cia director himself, even though these are just three random senators. the senators said their questions were answered as reasonably could be expected and they were willing to consider the president's nominee for secretary of state. they were throwing hear out those nominations fairly and without prejudice. yeah right. that's not the way it went. here's actually what happened after that meeting today. >> we're not going to consider this nomination until we get answers to our concerns. we're not even close to getting the basic answers. >> we're troubled by many of the answers we got. >> i'm
that that nomination for secretary of state is instead almost certain to go to united nations ambassador susan rice. republicans tried to make into a scandal susan rice's comments after the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya. her comments that the attack was thought to be linked to islamist protests rather than an organized terrorist attack. but the administration and the intelligence committee have stepped up to defend her remarks that sunday. and if she is tapped by president obama to replace secretary clinton as secretary of state that would imply that the president is willing to keep backing susan rice up all the way. the current defense secretary is leon panetta. he used to run the cia where he was succeeded by general petraeus. now that seat is also available. the same administration sources talking to "the post" also tell ing that the job is his. the job has made his desire to leave public service, but if he does reconsider, apparently the cia chief job should be his. if mr. brennan decides he does not want the job, the current acting director michael morell looks likely to keep the job.
the talking points given to susan rice obtained all the intelligence the intelligence community had. without going into detail, there were several reports clearly stating that al qaeda affiliated groups were involved in the attack and were very heavily involved in the attack and that did not make it into the talking points, did not make it into the final talking points that were given to congress or to susan rice even though they were in the original talking points. that's a real issue as to why that was taken out. and i just feel that there are still many unanswered questions as to who actually put the final version of the talking points together. that was not answered today. >> congressman king, you have been tough on susan rice based on the fact that she went out on tv and what she said but tonight it sounds like you're saying she wasn't given all the information that did exist within the intelligence community. we've just heard also barbara starr reporting that tomorrow, petraeus is going to say he felt it was a terror attack from the get-go but there were other strains of intelligence.
giving its best initial assessment to dr. susan rice who then gave that assessment to the public on behalf of the white house and then the assessment changed on the part of the cia. i'm not sure what the scandal is but i've heard words like watergate being thrown around which i think goes a step too far and is too political. >> cameras did not catch petraeus arriving this morning even though there were reporters staking out every possible entrance and all we saw was a black car leaving his home early this morning. "the washington post" is reporting also here that the hearings are being held in secret committee rooms used for discussion on national security matters. what do you think this says about how petraeus is viewed on the hill? >> well, i don't know what republicans, whether they're fishing for a scandal or not but i'm fishing for answers. there's no doubt that the public was given misleading and wrong information at the beginning by susan rice. the president was exactly right. she was just reading the talking points she was given by the administration and she was on that s
mccain in criticizing the potential nomination of susan rice, criticizing that nomination on the basis of ambassador rice's role in explaining what happened in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. now nbc's andrea mitchell is reporting tonight that the acting director of the cia is going to be joining ambassador rice in person for that meeting tomorrow with those critical senators. we'll keep you posted if we learn more about this breaking news tonight. but the long and short of this is, number one, the acting cia director getting involved in resolving the factual matters that have been contested by republican senators, and two, we have the strongest signal we have had yet about who the president will likely nominate to replace hillary clinton. the highest profile position in the cabinet, alongside the attorney general, but it's big news in politics and big news in terms of american diplomacy. cabinet nominations are not always fights. but in this case, a susan rice secretary of state nomination is something that some republicans have said they would love to have
current secretary of state hillary clinton. nbc first reported that susan rice was paying visits to members of the foreign relations committee. that's her first stop in the nominating process if the president does pick her. senator john mccain later confirmed to nbc news that he will be meeting with ambassador rice tomorrow along with lindsey graham of south carolina. they have joined john mccain in criticizing the potential nomination of susan rice, criticizing that nomination on the basis of ambassador rice's role in explaining what happened in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. now nbc's andrea mitchell is reporting tonight that the acting director of the cia is going to be joining ambassador rice in person for that meeting tomorrow with those critical senators. we'll keep you posted if we learn more about this breaking news tonight. but the long and short of this is, number one, the acting cia director getting involved in resolving the factual matters that have been contested by republican senators, and two, we have the strongest signal we have had yet about who th
hard answers and talk about appointments. susan rice is an excellent candidate to be secretary of state and i think that john mccain came out just today and said he was opposed to her nomination. i don't think that's a fair statement because susan rice was simply following the advice from general petraeus who john mccain says was a hero so there's a great deal of inconsistency in the republican messaging that needs to be answered. >> mccain's biggest obstacle is the fact she went on the sunday talkers and talked about the video that -- >> and she was following the talking points given to her by general petraeus of cia. how can you say that petraeus is a hero on the one hand but susan rice who is following general petraeus' talking points is not. >> the president has his first press conference coming up in just a couple of hours and as we have been highly aware, the fiscal cliff is certainly going to be a big conversation but can the president get the focus where it needs to be when it comes to the fiscal cliff especially when we have people like paul ryan giving interviews saying he's s
economy. >> the president also making clear that he has susan rice's back. that's his ambassador, the embattled u.s. ambassador to the united nations. initially she said that that september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi began as a spontaneous protest against an anti-islam film. well, now two top-ranking republicans are vowing to block her nomination if, in fact, she is picked to be the next secretary of state. that had the president very anger. here's what he said. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> white house correspondent dan lothian is in washington, d.c., this morning. let's start first, dan, before we get to the ambassador, the embattled ambassador, let's start with taxes. >> well, yes. you know, republicans pushing back on the president yesterday, because they don't want to see taxes raised, even on wealthy americans, because they believe that that will stifle economic growth and will hit those people who are the job creators. at the same time, there does appear to be this willingness to
. >> any other implicatiomplicati bringing up the benghazi, it will hurt susan rice becoming the new secretary of state. >> republicans are determined to dea deny her that job. it will be districting. we'll see. >> making the u.s. inept and distracted on the national stage. i thought that the president articulated a smart strategy on foreign policy. this should be a moment of focusing on coming together. >> back to the first question that i asked the general, how deep is the bench? how many people, look i'm not saying there are a lot of talented and smart people in the u.s., a handful of stars who really can operate at this level and rona correctly points out, that breadth of experience. >> these guys were leading our war efforts in some pivotal places in the world. to lose them so quick lly in th kind of fashion is kind of a shock to the system. are there people that can pick up the reins of this. >> is this the end of this? >> i don't think so. >> who knew what when? if the fbi was involved much earlier, why didn't it inform the white house and congress? as you say, why were some o
to make sure susan rice is nominated by the president, u.n. ambassador to be secretary of state, is that enough to make sure she's confirmed. >> i would be surprised if he nominated susan rice. although she probably would be confirmed, hearings would be a misery, a place where we would see again and again that she was the mouthpiece for a false story about what happened in benghazi. does the administration want to be held hostage to susan rice's overstatements of the case on tv multiple, multiple times. >> i don't know if you have inside information, everything i hear the president wants her to be the next secretary of state. >> she would be a strong nominee, excellent for this job. and if republicans want to go down the road of benghazi making it a political issue, we saw it play out in the campaign, not much success for them, it would be a strategic error to play politics with this issue and try to block susan rice with it. >> what about john kerry, rumored to replace panetta at the defense department. already calling the swift boat activity, saying he threw away his medals fr
.s. ambassador to the united nations susan rice in the aftermath. former cia director david petraeus has been here on capitol hill time and time again. but today before the senate and house intelligence committee is shrouded in secrecy. he may have a blow by blow attack on what happened in benghazi, libya, that led to the death of four americans, including the u.s. ambassador. >> director petraeus went to the people, as i understood it, that were involved. so the opportunity to get his views, i think are very -- is very important. >> reporter: this comes after a day of hearings yesterday into the benghazi attack. most closed to the public, but one was open. and much of the focus is on u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice, who back in september appeared on five sunday morning talk shows with the same talking points, the attacks she said appear to be the work of protestors, not terrorists as it now appears. the implication at the height of campaign season, the president did not want to be responsible for a terrorist attack. >> the arrogance and dishonesty
after the benghazi incident when susan rice went on the sunday talk shows an said the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration against an antimuslim video. let's get right to the breaking report right now. barbara starr is at the pentagon. you've been breaking this. tell us what you're learning tonight about david petraeus' testimony on benghazi. >> i've spoken to a source close to petraeus, directly familiar with petraeus' thinking on this matter. petraeus, we are told, wants to go to the hill, set the record straight and tell everything he knows. he will start by saying indeed that he knew almost immediately after that it was ansar al sharia, but there was also confusion. he had about 20 intelligence reports linking the attacks to that video, that anti-islamic video. those reports were disproven, but not until after he had briefed capitol hill. all of this took some time to sort out. that's what he wants to lay out tomorrow. >> and barbara, if he knew, and i know you're saying there were conflicting reports, which we have heard before, but if he knew and he's going to say he k
that out, that there was no political spin in this. >> u.s. ambassador to the united nations susan rice said on the sunday after the attack it had been provoked by an anti- muslim video. we'll have more when we get a preview of fox news sunday at 8:30. >>> here at home, nine teenagers are under arrest after a pair of attacks at the woodly park metro station. it started with a robbery friday night. 18-year-old olijawon griffin was the victim. later he ran into some of the robbers and there was an altercation and he was stabbed to death. >> still in the process of analyzing video along with metro transit police to determine what if anything else was captured. >> officials say the system is safe to use. >>> montgomery county police are still on the hunt for a robbery suspect. he's on the right. he's got a gun held at the other man's back in front of an atm. this robbery happened 8:30 thursday night in the 13000 block of new hampshire avenue in colesville in front of the victim's 4-year-old daughter. if you have information, please call montgomery county police. >>> prince george's county,
this problem. >> i want to ask you about susan rice or john kerry for secretary of state. do you have a preference? do you think one would be an easier confirmation than the other? >> i think they both have incredible depth of knowledge and capability in that position and i'm waiting to hear what the president has to say to us. >> you don't believe there is a confirmation issue with susan ri rice? >> i think susan rice has done an incredible job for our country. she has a right if she is nominated to come before the senate and make her case, and i hope that no one draws lines in the sand until she has that opportunity if she's nominated. >> all right. senator patty murray, who is chairwoman of the dnc. i understand you don't want to do that job again. >> i have other responsibilities, yes. >> we will wait to see who comes next. senator murray, thanks for coming on this morning. >> thank you. >>> and we have some breaking news that we let you know of during the bottom banner, but house minority leader nancy pelosi is once again going to run for leader. again the official announcement i
.s. -- united nations ambassador susan rice for the benghazi response. here is what the president said. >> as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> okay. so it took senator john mccain about an hour to make it to the s senate floor to offer a response. >> that statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks that we are picking on people, he really does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. >> seems like the testosterone-fueled rhetoric over benghazi is sort of getting out of control. former cia operative bob behr joins us this morning. good morning, bob. >> good morning. >> i want to make it clear to our viewers what lawmakers want to figure out. there are three separate hearings about to take place today. this is what they're trying to figure out. one, why didn't the united states increase security in libya? two, did the obama administration
politically charged controversy is over u.n. ambassador susan rice's comments five days after the attack. why she blamed it on benghazi demonstrations, officials now say didn't even happen. and why she didn't mention terrorist forces? intelligence officials now believe actually targeted the u.s. consulate there. democrats emerge saying the answer was simple, she was using these unclassified cia talking points which omitted mention of extremist elements because it was still classified and could have compromised intelligence sources. >> she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. >> reporter: democrats accuse republicans of unnecessarily assassinating rice's character. >> to select ambassador rice because she used an unclassified talking point, to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state i think is a mistake. >> reporter: but republicans say the problem is rice freelanced. >> she went beyond that. and she even mentioned that under the leadership of barack obama we have decimat
rice are the u.n. ambassador. very interesting that today, president obama says, you know, susan rice had nothing to do with benghazi, i don't know what she was doing on the show. >> didn't she make her safe key player or a person put up by the administration to launch the defense. she could have said, we believe there are a number of possible theory sneers she didn't take that option. >> she was a good soldier did what the administration told her to do. she read the talking points. she had more -- >> did she act in good faith, do you think? >> i can't get inside her brain. i don't -- i think that she was repeating the intelligence and what the white house told her to say. what she was saying is similar to what everyone in the white house and the state department was saying at the time. so, i don't think that she was doing anything other than what she had been instructed to same the big question not whether this was one of the prominent theories, it was all a spontaneous protest from the anti-muslim video, it was, obviously, one of the prominent theories but on september 14th, the whi
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 63 (some duplicates have been removed)